Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux). > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam, > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this. > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package? > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount', > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}" > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}" > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created. Ross -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 + "Burton, Ross" wrote: > On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: > > > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux). > > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam, > > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this. > > > > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package? I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux package. > > > > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount', > > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}" > > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', > > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}" > > > > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created. Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4. > > Ross -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:03:03 Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 + > > "Burton, Ross" wrote: > > On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: > > > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux). > > > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam, > > > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this. > > > > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package? > > I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux > package. > > > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount', > > > > > > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}" > > > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', > > > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}" > > > > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created. > > Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4. Unfortunately this wasn't right - the package being excluded from PACKAGES was serving to avoid the libpam dependency when pam was not in DISTRO_FEATURES; as of this patch we are now building it unconditionally leading to a warning. Ioan-Adrian, could you please send a patch that changes it back to how you had it in v3? Thanks, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:52:50 +1300 Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:03:03 Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 + > > > > "Burton, Ross" wrote: > > > On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu > wrote: > > > > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by util-linux). > > > > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam, > > > > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this. > > > > > > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package? > > > > I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux > > package. > > > > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount', > > > > > > > > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}" > > > > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', > > > > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}" > > > > > > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created. > > > > Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4. > > Unfortunately this wasn't right - the package being excluded from PACKAGES > was > serving to avoid the libpam dependency when pam was not in DISTRO_FEATURES; > as > of this patch we are now building it unconditionally leading to a warning. > > Ioan-Adrian, could you please send a patch that changes it back to how you > had > it in v3? Yes, I'll send v5 which will revert the change from v4. > > Thanks, > Paul > -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [RESEND PATCH v3] util-linux: create util-linux-runuser package
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:26:02 +0200 Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:52:50 +1300 > Paul Eggleton wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:03:03 Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:34:12 + > > > > > > "Burton, Ross" wrote: > > > > On 15 December 2015 at 09:49, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Split runuser into its own package (previously provided by > > > > > util-linux). > > > > > Since runuser is compiled only when DISTRO_FEATURES includes pam, > > > > > the creation of util-linux-runuser is also constrained by this. > > > > > > > > What's the rationale for pulling this out into a separate package? > > > > > > I need runuser on a busybox image and can't install the entire util-linux > > > package. > > > > > PACKAGES += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'pylibmount', > > > > > > > > > > 'util-linux-pylibmount', '', d)}" > > > > > +PACKAGES =+ "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'pam', > > > > > 'util-linux-runuser', '', d)}" > > > > > > > > No need for conditionals: empty packages are not created. > > > > > > Thank you for this tip, I've modified and sent v4. > > > > Unfortunately this wasn't right - the package being excluded from PACKAGES > > was > > serving to avoid the libpam dependency when pam was not in DISTRO_FEATURES; > > as > > of this patch we are now building it unconditionally leading to a warning. > > > > Ioan-Adrian, could you please send a patch that changes it back to how you > > had > > it in v3? > > Yes, I'll send v5 which will revert the change from v4. > Uh oh, I just rebased on origin/master and it looks like v4 was commited there a few hours ago. So I'll just send a new patch to introduce the pam conditional on top of the already integrated change. > > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core